Should evolution be taught in schools?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
JD, I love the horseshoe crab! I grew up by the beach. I guess hunting for seashells is protopaleontology.

Yeah - I grew up 5 minutes from the ocean and went to school a couple of blocks from the beach. I used to play with them when I was little. They make cool designs in the sand when they walk/crawl.

Is that an F-17?

I guess it may be. I thought I had chosen the F15. I copied a bunch from that site. I looked and this one is the Jetfighter - not the F15. I also have a Stealth Bomber, nukes and a ton of other ones.

[Rían]

jerseydevil - I love F-15's - one of the few aircraft that can go straight up! I worked on the radar end of the F15 a teensy bit as a summer hire at Hughes Aircraft Co. I worked full-time after graduation as an engineer for a radar company, working with military air traffic control radars, but that was B.K. (before kids); now I consult part-time while kids are in school. F15s are my absolute all-time favorite a/c!! (my son's, too - he always says "F-15 E Eagle"). See if you can find a good pic of one.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
...what matters to me is whether or not people are willing to scientifically evaluate the testable details of a theory! - be it named the "theory of evolution" or the "theory of creation by intelligent design". I saw lots of "of course you can't!!" for the latter theory earlier on this thread. Are you people of the same opinion now?

I don't believe in a supreme being - so I don't believe in intelligent design. I believe we are the result of chemical processes.

The new "Intelligent design" theorists I believe are just trying to get creationism taught in schools - without any real backing to support their theory other than the bible. They've basically invented this theory and tried to incorporate the Theory of Evolution in with the story of creationism.

In order to have intelligent design - you'd need a supreme being. Science isn't trying to prove or disprove god - but it is trying to explain where we came from.

We'd still be living in the dark ages without science - without religion we would most likely be living in peace.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
RÃ*an, I have one question: Are you leading this somewhere? I can't see what the point is of establishing Atheism as a religion. Thanks for pointing out the similarity, though, I hadn't noticed it before you mentioned it.

Now why would I lead it somewhere? Yes, but it's too late to get into it tonight...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
jerseydevil - I love F-15's - one of the few aircraft that can go straight up! I worked on the radar end of the F15 a teensy bit as a summer hire at Hughes Aircraft Co. I worked full-time after graduation as an engineer for a radar company, working with military air traffic control radars, but that was B.K. (before kids); now I consult part-time while kids are in school. F15s are my absolute all-time favorite a/c!! (my son's, too - he always says "F-15 E Eagle"). See if you can find a good pic of one.

I always liked F16s - but here is a pic of an F15 that is cool.


It's located at - http://www.usmilitaryart.com

Or were you looking for an avatar?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I am referring to the #3 def., and the zeal part is especially appropriate. And devotion does not necessarily mean worship, it also means loyalty to something.

I'm sorry Rian, but I don't think that atheism can be classified as a religion, just because there are some *zealous* atheists out there. Also, zeal I would have to say, is more traditionally associated with religion, not atheism. Furthermore, a belief system does not automatically get categorised as a religion; religion is a very specific belief system/ideology which has specific criteria, namely that of a belief in a higher power.

Devotion doesn't necessarily mean worship, but conscientious devotion has a religious ring to it.

As I said earlier, this has been covered numerous times before. If I'm being tetchy about it, it is because we've gone down this particular garden path before. On top of this, I have also done several papers for my degree relating to the study of ideologies, and how they evolve. Without meaning to sound arrogant, I know what I'm talking about when I say that atheism is an ideology NOT a religion (just as religion is an ideology.) If I'm nitpicking, it is because I have covered this so many times now with my lecturers, and on respective boards.

(Late editting to fix some very bad grammar, and state my arguments more clearly. )

[Lief Erikson]

Far more similarity? Is it not enough that we share most of our DNA with a chimp?

I'm not fighting evolution, and I didn't say that we don't possibly share a common ancestor. I'm not agreeing either, that's simply not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying that there should be more mixture between all of the species, or most all. When something changes a tiny amount over time, and reproduces, and those others also reproduce a tiny amount over time, these two different branches aren't going to necessarily branch off in completely different directions. There are many different species out there, and many different kinds of insects which are totally unrelated to each other. This doesn't make sense if they were all originating from a similar source. We'd have perhaps a very few species which are completely unrelated to each other, not an enormous number.

If a species changed its entire genetic makeup over a very large period of time, then you would see others in the same area/climate doing the same thing, although possibly in slightly different ways. All species don't evolve in precisely the same way, simply because they live in the same, or a similar area. The likelihood of such a thing happening is extremely small. If that was the case, then I think you'd see very, very many human related species around now, from species that didn't quite evolve the same way that we have. More human primates than we see now. And that's only one species, there are many others which also would be very closely related to one another.

Assuming a fast evolution solves this problem, for although you would get different species closely related to each other, just like in the slow evolution example, you wouldn't get nearly as many. And I think the evidence that exists around us in the way that species are now suggests the likelihood of this theory being the correct one.

Forgive me if some of my information is wrong on this. Unlike some of you, this isn't a subject that I've studied in great depth.

Originally posted by Cirdan
You are dead wrong about this, and since I have posted why I can only assume that you do not read my posts. It is not a matter of opinion. There is no way that the dating could be incorrect. You can argue ID about it but the time line is fixed by the stratigraphy of the earth. Well the earth is covered with ancient rock formation with fossils that are even older.

So you're arguing that the dating methods used today can't be wrong? (Sighs) I thought we'd already covered the ground of the marigin of error, and that nothing can be proved by science. A faulty tool can lead to false assumptions, and simply because it hasn't yet been shown to be faulty doesn't mean it isn't. How we measure the laid out timeline could be faulty. How we insert years can be faulty. Our means of measuring the data that is given to us is what has room for error in it, and has been shown to have such in history.

Originally posted by Cirdan
The idea that the world will suddenly become topsy-turvy is very amusing. Maybe we will discover that we don't use oxygen from the air. Maybe the Roman Empire never existed. And maybe the sun really revolves around the earth. Golly, anything could happen.

Maybe we'll discover the world is round instead of flat. It was discovered in history. The people back then had their measurements incorrect, and their frame of reference was too small at that point to see the real picture. In our own methods of showing things to be true, there is marigin of error. You seem to think that something science has established can't be shown wrong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
In my degree of ANTHROPOLOGY I covered quite a bit of this source material thank you very much.

I was talking to Cirdan. I haven't seen you argue for the millions of years evolution over the faster paced one.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
All dating has a degree of error. The way that it is built up (ie, half lifes, decay etc) indicates that a young earth is an improbality. Even if dating had a +/- error of 30% (it only has a +/- degree of error of about 1-4% depending on the dating method) it would still point to a billion year old earth. Also, the stratification of the fossil record (the build up can actually be measured according to a specific rate of build up) indicates an older earth.

I'm not arguing about an older Earth, I'm saying that the theory that evolution takes place over a longer period of time could be wrong, and giving one or two of the inconsistencies that would be explained by a faster evolution. I'm not arguing with the evidence that the Earth yields, I'm saying that our dating of fossils and organic tissue to get these longer dates could be flawed. I'm not explaining how it could be flawed, simply establishing that it could be.




You know what, I think that the difficulty in what is being said by all of you in this is that you're suddenly ignoring all of the discussion we just had about chance, and the possibility of science making a mistake. We've agreed (I think) that errors have happened in the past, and they might happen in the future, and they might be happening in the present.

Believing the current scientific theories is a perfectly fine thing, and if no one believed them, then we wouldn't get anywhere. I'm not denying that there is evidence to support basically all of the theories that are out there now, so you don't have to quote the evidence to me. I know that there are reasons why people believe what they believe just now. But all scientific theories are still theories, and a groundbreaking discovery might suddenly uproot things that were previously "known."

[Lief Erikson]

Oh, Earniel, quite some time ago you asked for further information about that situation which helps give credit to the fast evolution theory that I mentioned. The one where four species evolved from one in only a few years on an island which had major environmental shifts going on which were forcing the first species to the edge of extinction. Well, I'm sorry to report that that was something my Dad heard on the radio and told us about later, so I don't know where to access further information. But new things are being discovered about genes and genetics, and I dare say that in a few years there'll probably be more new books out about new possiblities that need to be explored in the theory of evolution.

[Earniel]

It's okay, I was just curious about it because it seemed so unlikely.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm not arguing about an older Earth, I'm saying that the theory that evolution takes place over a longer period of time could be wrong, and giving one or two of the inconsistencies that would be explained by a faster evolution. I'm not arguing with the evidence that the Earth yields, I'm saying that our dating of fossils and organic tissue to get these longer dates could be flawed. I'm not explaining how it could be flawed, simply establishing that it could be.

Of course it could be flawed. We're only human. In fact, it is probably flawed. However, there are some things that we can safely say with certainty. The earth is round, and it is billions of years old. The fossil record is also very very old. Flaws aside, there is just no arguing with that fact. The age of the earth, and the progression of life (and its age) are very very old.

Please state these one or two inconsistencies. What time frame are you postulating for this faster evolution?

LF:
We've agreed (I think) that errors have happened in the past, and they might happen in the future, and they might be happening in the present.

The beauty of science is that it *is* made up of shifting paradigms. It refits the theories around the available facts accordingly.

Regarding evolution; there are facts that simply can't be dismissed. To use an analogy, if a boat sinks in the middle of the ocean, and pieces of the wreckage are recovered, we know that a boat sank. We don't know, however, what caused the boat to sink. The same can be said for evolution. We have recovered bits and pieces of the fossil record - unfortunately it does not survive well - but we don't know the causal factors.

Just because every step can not be explained in the evolutionary process, does not mean that it is totally in error.

The same can be said for the timeframe of evolution, and ultimately of the Earth's age. The is enough evidence to break down what happened when, and how long it took for each process (approximately.) Obviously, with the very early fossil record, much of it is speculative, given the sheer age of the earth, and the fragility of the fossil record. However, I can say that if some new breakthrough is going to pop up to confuzzle everyone, it certainly won't be postulating a younger earth, but rather, a much much older one.

Finally, I'm not sure what you're going on about regarding faster evolution. The rate of change in evolving organisms is not constant. Several factors have to be taken into consideration, ie speciation, competition, resources, etc. Some biological adaptations occur at a much faster rate than others.

LF:
But new things are being discovered about genes and genetics, and I dare say that in a few years there'll probably be more new books out about new possiblities that need to be explored in the theory of evolution.

I think we all agree with this. There are many holes in the theory of evolution due to the lack of information. The further back you go on time, the more patchy the evidence is in the fossil record. It's a good thing that science, as a general rule, is so fluid; thanks god for the shifting paradigms!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Just because every step can not be explained in the evolutionary process, does not mean that it is totally in error.

I agree with you completely. As a matter of a fact, I agree with just about all of your post.

I'm personally a little surprised that you consider our current dating methods to be just as accurate as the fact that the world is round, but it's your choice how strong you think these methods are.

I'm not postulating another time frame for the faster evolution. Unfortunately, I haven't studied the subject enough to do that kind of thing. However, two of the primary reasons that I am advocating it is because the possibility has lately been coming to scientific thought, as more knowledge is procured, and secondly, because the Bible also tends to advocate that more than a longer evolution. You might not take the Bible as a valid source of evidence, and I'm not using it as such. If it said nothing at all on the subject, then I'd let the matter be. But I tend to believe that Adam was the first man, and the faster evolution certainly implies that this could easily happen. How long the animals had been around before him, I'm not sure, but in the Bible it says that sin and death were brought to the world when Adam succumbed to temptation, and this would imply that none of the animals had died yet. Here you'll probably start laughing, but that is one of the reasons why I am attempting to cast doubt on the dating method for a millions of years evolution.

But it really isn't my place to cast doubt on this for you. In years to come, we'll see where evolution goes, and if this other version might be adopted.

Even the creation of Eve from Adam falls into the realm of definite possibility by scientific causes if you accept the faster evolution idea. Frogs, when under dire straights, have been known to change sexes to produce a female. The same sort of thing as that island scenario which I told you about. Species, in their genetics, have a strong ability to adapt. Evidence of this is visible all through creation, how in the desert, desert animals live, in the forest, forest animals live, in the swamp, swamp animals live, etc. Some species, once introduced to a difficult habitat, can even change themselves to adapt at a faster rate.


In my most recent post, one of the larger reasons why I was showing the evidence that what I was suggesting could be is because of this:

Originally posted by Cirdan
There is no way that the dating could be incorrect.

That statement is what I was trying to pound .

[Cirdan]

There seems to be some confusion here about the fossil record. Most life on earth is made up of large organisms. Most of the world's life is made up of invertebrates. The vertebrate fossil record is irrevelent in dating the age of the earth, It's not like the fossil record is patchy here. Some huge rock formations are made of nothing but fossils. The isn't any gaps at this level. There are literally mountains of fossils in the record. Extending BoPs analogy to this record;it is like saying were found the entire fleet, all the crews, the place were they wrecked, a clock the broke witht he exact time frozen, and a calendar beside it with the days marked off.

The age of the earth, determined by stratigraphy alone, is still billions of years. Radiometric dating is only a secondary tool of convenience.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Unfortunately, I haven't studied the subject enough to do that kind of thing.

That is abundantly obvious.

[Lief Erikson]

Cirdan, if there were as many fossils as you're saying, then I think I should bring up the point that many interim species that should exist between one species and another haven't shown up. How we date the exiting fossils, and the accuracy of that dating is what can be questioned, not the existence of fossils themselves. We are in agreement that there are fossils of species that are now extinct . But there are problems in that although one species from seventy five million years ago or some such number have many specimins to support their existence, there isn't much at all by way of species in between. This is one of those inconsistencies with the current representation of evolution that I was talking about.

I'm not arguing, when saying this, that there aren't any in between species at all. I know that there are some, like the Neanderthals. But when such discoveries do come, up, they are generally major discoveries. We have the evidence of many Neanderthals having existed at one time now, but we don't have a constant, slightly evolving chain of species. This is easily explained by a faster evolution, for by that theory a species would hop from one stage of development to another within a rather small space of time, and doesn't even need hundreds of in between species.

Meanwhile, I say again that I wasn't arguing about the age of the Earth. It doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth in the Bible, anyway. How we date the fossils is what has room for error, as anything that we do in science does.

[Cirdan]

Geographic Distribution of animals indicates gradual development of life, becuase dissimilarities between faunas of different areas are largelt correlated with the length of time during which they have been isolated from one another. The peculiar mammalian fauna of Australia, for example, composed largely of marsupials, is evidently a result of Australia's separation from Asia in Cretaceous or early Cenozoic time. Evolution on a sub-specific level is indicated by tree snails of some tropical islands of the Pacific, in which trees grow only in the valleys; here, each valley has its own subspecies of snails, morphologically distinct from those of adjacent valleys, because mixing and interbreeding of the various populations is prevented by dry, treeless divides between the valleys. This situation is most readily explained be postulating descent of the various subspeicies from a single ancestral form which spread widely during a time of continuous forest. presumably, the subspecies evolved from local populations which became isolated by the development of arid treeless divides.

"Invertebrate Fossils" Moore, Lalicker, Fischer p. 30

I hope this helps you understand how species become separated, differentiate, and branch differently from their parent forms.

[Earniel]

LE:Even the creation of Eve from Adam falls into the realm of definite possibility by scientific causes if you accept the faster evolution idea. Frogs, when under dire straights, have been known to change sexes to produce a female. The same sort of thing as that island scenario which I told you about. Species, in their genetics, have a strong ability to adapt. Evidence of this is visible all through creation, how in the desert, desert animals live, in the forest, forest animals live, in the swamp, swamp animals live, etc. Some species, once introduced to a difficult habitat, can even change themselves to adapt at a faster rate.

Of course I may be dead wrong about this but to me you seem to think that evolution happens in the blink of an eye. A frog, be it previous male and now female or visa versa is still the same frog, just becasue it can change sex doesn't mean it can turn into a salamander. A caterpillar can turn into a butterfly but it will always turn into a butterfly and not suddenly into a musquito. I have heard of discoveries of new species but I have never heard of a new species that wasn't there a couple of years before ( unless it was a primitive organism where mutations are more likely to occur) Which was why I wanted to know more about this mystery island.

Desert animals live in deserts but you won't get a desert frog by dumping an ordinary one in the desert and telling it to adapt. Some species do adapt to their environment but some species deliberately chose their habitat because they had the advantage there.

About the fossil record. The circumstances of fosilisation are pretty rare which means that only a small amount of the remains of creatures that once lived are found again in fossils. That's why you don't get complete evolutionary lines with all the intermediate species.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Cirdan, if there were as many fossils as you're saying, then I think I should bring up the point that many interim species that should exist between one species and another haven't shown up. How we date the exiting fossils, and the accuracy of that dating is what can be questioned, not the existence of fossils themselves. We are in agreement that there are fossils of species that are now extinct . But there are problems in that although one species from seventy five million years ago or some such number have many specimins to support their existence, there isn't much at all by way of species in between. This is one of those inconsistencies with the current representation of evolution that I was talking about.

Now you are just making things up. You don't even know if there ar gaps or not. The fact is, you are wrong about this. Brachiopods existed hudreds of millions of years ago. They are identical to Mollusks except for one festure that gave the Mollusks a distinct advantage in competing for the same space. Mollusks exist continuously since. This is one example is very, very, many.

I'm not arguing, when saying this, that there aren't any in between species at all. I know that there are some, like the Neanderthals.

No wonder you don't get evolution if you think that the Neanderthal is important in Evolution. It may be important to man but is irrelevant to the fossil record.

But when such discoveries do come, up, they are generally major discoveries. We have the evidence of many Neanderthals having existed at one time now, but we don't have a constant, slightly evolving chain of species. This is easily explained by a faster evolution, for by that theory a species would hop from one stage of development to another within a rather small space of time, and doesn't even need hundreds of in between species.
[/b][/quote]
That is nothing but silly. Neanderthalensis is a subspecies at best. There is so little variation that "fast evolution" is really just... evolution. Look at the apparent differences among races. This happened quickly. That doesn't mean it is even vaguely close to a significant change. We may look wildly different from one another but that means little.

Meanwhile, I say again that I wasn't arguing about the age of the Earth. It doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth in the Bible, anyway. How we date the fossils is what has room for error, as anything that we do in science does.

Then how do you explain the fossils buried in that very old earth? They have to be older than the formatrion they are buried in.

The biblical age of the earth is easily derived by counting backwards the ages of the people in the hereditary line, as your father mentioned, to the day Adam and Eve were created. The earth is just a few days older. Of course if you want a non-literal translation then anything goes, as they say.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Desert animals live in deserts but you won't get a desert frog by dumping an ordinary one in the desert and telling it to adapt. Some species do adapt to their environment but some species deliberately chose their habitat because they had the advantage there.

I agree. That would kill the frog . But an envirnoment doesn't always go from lush to bleak in a matter of seconds, and the time lapse can be enough for species to adapt to the changes. Sometimes this adaptation, as in my island example, can cause a large change in the species.

Originally posted by Eärniel
About the fossil record. The circumstances of fosilisation are pretty rare which means that only a small amount of the remains of creatures that once lived are found again in fossils. That's why you don't get complete evolutionary lines with all the intermediate species.

That's what I was assuming, but Cirdan said something about "mountains of fossils."

And there's something I'd liked explained to me: that we do see the same species found in different places more than once. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a somewhat odd coincidence that we find the same species several times in different parts of the world, but don't find many of the intermediate species at all.

Forgive me, Cirdan, but I saw little in your post in terms of factual evidence that contradicts what I said. All that did contradict was opinion and assumption.

Originally posted by Cirdan
Brachiopods existed hudreds of millions of years ago. They are identical to Mollusks except for one festure that gave the Mollusks a distinct advantage in competing for the same space. Mollusks exist continuously since. This is one example is very, very, many.

That is based upon your opinion of an infallible dating system.

Originally posted by Cirdan
That is nothing but silly. Neanderthalensis is a subspecies at best. There is so little variation that "fast evolution" is really just... evolution. Look at the apparent differences among races. This happened quickly. That doesn't mean it is even vaguely close to a significant change. We may look wildly different from one another but that means little.

I'd like to see your proof for that; it seems awfully much to me like a matter of opinion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Then how do you explain the fossils buried in that very old earth? They have to be older than the formatrion they are buried in.

That is the primary serious argument I can see in your post, and let me tell you one thing: the Earth is changing. If you throw a human dead body in with a bunch of ancient mummies (To use a rather morbid example), and the skeletons are retrieved later, you can't simply say that because the one body was with the others, it is the same age. If the Muslims built a Minarette beside an Egyptian pyramid, the fact that something new is with something old doesn't make the new thing old as well.

You might say that the Earth doesn't change that much, and when it does it's at an extremely slow rate because of the slowness of the continental divide, but the assumption that the continental divide was always as slow as it is now is erroneous. Simply because we observe, from our limited reference frame, that this is how fast it is moving now, doesn't imply that it has always been moving at that rate. And your earlier statement, by the way, that the continents would melt and life would cease to exist is entirely a matter of opinion. I'd like to see some strong evidence to back that up.

In any case, I'm not going to get into an argument for an early continental divide. You'd all throw all the evidence of the current scientific theories, supported by the current scientific dating at me, and I'd have little to respond to it all with. But current scientific theories are still merely current scientific theories. They have a lot of knowledge in them, usually, and science is a very great thing that has done a lot for humanity. It has some errors for it, and simply because it hasn't found the evidence for the flood or an earlier continental break-up yet doesn't mean that it never will.

The difficulty is, Cirdan, that in your arguments, you're assuming the accuracy of current scientific theories and dating methods, and you're saying that there isn't any chance that they're wrong. I'm believing in a universal truth, which is the Bible, and I'm assuming that there isn't any chance that that's wrong. That's an assumption I don't mean to prove the accuracy of to you, and the only way that you could find out whether it's accurate or not is to discover whether God exists or not, by seriously asking him, because you want to know. In numerous previous examples and in history, science has been shown to make mistakes, therefore I think your assumption as to the accuracy of current scientific theories is invalid. Mine is unusable, because the evidence to support it is all only evidence to me, not to the world.

There is some evidence out to support a quick evolution; I've mentioned some of these evidences here, and you can read others by looking at what material is available. The original theory of a longer evolution taking place also has evidence, due to dating and other things. As I've said many times before, there is a lot about evolution that we still don't know, and science has a long way to go in exploring that field. Time and further discovery will show which is the more likely, so I'm simply going to wait on that. I'm not attempting to prove to you all which is the truth, for I don't know that for certain. I simply tend to believe in the faster evolution, partly because it supports the Bible, and partly because it explains some of the inconsistencies we see in the old model.

Anyway, in this I'm not trying to prove to you that the dating's off, that the continental divide happened, that the flood happened, or that faster evolution happened. I'm simply establishing the possibility that these things happened, and I think the discussion about chance, scientific room for error, and design that we had before goes further in establishing that then any of the evidences that I have offered.

Originally posted by Cirdan
The biblical age of the earth is easily derived by counting backwards the ages of the people in the hereditary line, as your father mentioned, to the day Adam and Eve were created. The earth is just a few days older. Of course if you want a non-literal translation then anything goes, as they say.

In the New Testament, Jesus says that he is returning to the Earth "soon." Several centuries, by a human standard, isn't what I'd call soon. There is evidence in the Bible that our time is nothing. There is reason to believe that God's 7 days are different from human's seven days. Besides, during the earlier parts of creation, the sun hadn't even be created yet. Things in the Bible do sometimes have to be taken nonliterally.